Ant-Man is not someone I'm a fan of- though it's more if his impact than the character that is important. Pym aprticles are a important component of the Marvel Universe. Hank Pym gives us Ultron, an important Avengers villain. Hank Pym also has his dysfunctional marriage to bring a different dynamic and interaction to the Marvel U.

From what we were told awhile back, it also holds some great potential for expanding the history between the events of Captain America and Iron Man. The word was that Ant-Man would be set in two different eras- one in the 60's with Hank Pym as Ant-Man, and one modern day with Lang.

If that's the case, Howard Stark would still be alive, and could be working with Pym and a young Nick Fury at some point as SHIELD comes into being. Could even work in a young Stane or Ivan Vanko's father. Lots of ways to use that structure to flesh some interesting stuff out with.

That said, Ant-Man is the most ridiculous name for a main hero and will be a hard sell, marketing wise.

I feel like the fear factor associated with spiders is almost completely irrelevant to the character. Sure he has his darker moments, but unlike Batman he doesn't utilize it as a frightening symbol (except in a few instances). Its an all too literal reference to the origin of his powerset (which Kirkman takes a great stab at in his Spidey/Invincible Team-Up).

In Spider-Man's case we are willing to give him a pass because he has a story and character that remains rather strong despite a ridiculous name. If Ant-Man could be given the same treatment I wonder if people would still be so dismissive.

Spiders would be less feared than bats, true- but spiders still have an edgier, "cool", perception regardless of Peter Parker's story. Ants do not have that.If Peter Parker had been bitten by a radioactive/genetically-engineered ant, "Ant-Man" would still be a silly name regardless.

I've never faulted Ant Man for the name. After all, as has been pointed out, Spiderman is pretty stupid, much less something like Aquaman or Martian Manhunter. There's a certain genre aesthetic one just has to accept. I also accept the premise that character is more important than gimmicks/power, or else Superman and his ilk would automatically be the best and most interesting superheroes. Instead, my complaints about Ant Man are two. In the first place, the line about character treats rich character development and interesting powers as mutually exclusive. They obviously aren't. A compelling character would be just as much so if they actually had abilities that weren't laughable or asinine, so it's unclear to me why anyone feels the need to make up people with such powers.

In the second, more important than the name or motif of a hero is how well they make it work. Spiderman rarely stretches into painfully over-extended metaphors and lame puns, yet the arachnid-themed elements they do have, like agility, web-slinging, and wall-climbing both make sense for the hero and are intuitively identifiable with spiders. By contrast, Ant Man has. . .shrinking. The connection to ants or termites or anything else I can't even see, except for the fact that they are both small . But why not call him the Dust Speck? The Mote in the Eye of Villainy? Micron? How are his powers or his story even connected to ants at all? What does it have to do with anything? It seems like someone just drew the name of a random animal out of a bag and slapped in front of "Man" to create his superhero alias. They really have to put more effort into it than that.

By contrast, Ant Man has. . .shrinking. The connection to ants or termites or anything else I can't even see, except for the fact that they are both small . But why not call him the Dust Speck? The Mote in the Eye of Villainy? Micron? How are his powers or his story even connected to ants at all? What does it have to do with anything? It seems like someone just drew the name of a random animal out of a bag and slapped in front of "Man" to create his superhero alias. They really have to put more effort into it than that.

Because he wears a helmet that allows him to communicate and command ants.

In the first place, the line about character treats rich character development and interesting powers as mutually exclusive. They obviously aren't. A compelling character would be just as much so if they actually had abilities that weren't laughable or asinine, so it's unclear to me why anyone feels the need to make up people with such powers.

Characters are not defined by their abilities whether ridiculous or not. Kitty Pryde for example has a pretty useless power when it comes to being in direct conflict. Sure she can evade quickly, but that doesn't help her fight. Until she gets creative with her abilities and starts to explore the possibilities. Being able to evade and strike becomes quite useful. As does the discovery that her ability can short circuit electrical devices. She and the authors find was to make her ability useful, even if indirectly. That becomes part of her character arc, her growth as a human being and overcoming the limitations of skills. This can be done with just about anyone with less than impressive abilities. You make fun of Reed Richards abilities, but his intelligence and creativity with his abilities make him an effective hero on nearly any team.

Ant-Man is no different. When Pym is scaled down he retains the strength of a fully grown human being (not disimilar to ants who are capable of feats of strength many times their own weight). So he's capable of striking enemies undetected. His communication with ants allows him to use them as mini-spies as no one would consider an ant a threat, or call upon them as a swarm to create a distraction. He can also call upon them for airborne transportation. He can move about undetected to the naked eye to get into secure areas or move past enemies or take them by surprise. He can find his way into sensitive areas for sabotage purposes. There is no end to the potential, if you take a moment to try. And if we are talking Hank Pym he brings with him a brilliant scientific mind and a slew of various inventions at his disposal. This doesn't even take into account his abilities as Giant-Man/Goliath/Yellow Jacket.

Again the ability/gimmick isn't the problem, its the lack of imagination. What he lacks is interesting character development and story.

Ant Man's striking me as a mistake at this point, plain and simple. He brings scientific expertise to the table, except we already have that from Iron Man and Bruce Banner. Which means he's forced to rely on his power set to differentiate himself - and it's shrinking. And controlling ants. La dee ****ing dah.

The only way I could see it working is if they cheat at their own conceit and fold in his enlarging abilities at the same time, in which case, oh, hey, 50 foot man, that's pretty interesting.

And makes Galactus more plausible once they rip the rights back from Fox .

EDIT 1- Seems in a recent interview that Hugo Weaving has expressed his lack of desire in returning as the Red Skull. He says:

I did that for Captain America. I think the tendency, with those films, would be to probably not bring a villain back. They might for The Avengers, but I didn't think I'd be in Captain America 2 or 3. I don't think Red Skull will be there. And it's not something I would want to do again. I'm glad I did it. I did sign up for a number of pictures and I suppose, contractually, I would be obliged to, if they forced me to, but they wouldn't want to force someone to do it, if they didn't want to. I think I've done my dash with that sort of film.

Mary Elizabeth Winstead is said to be Marvel's choice for Sharon Carter without a screen test, but if she doesn't take the role, the other actresses rumored previously will be screen tested. Also for Winter Solider are rumors of Josh Holloway (Lost) and Nikolaj Coster-Waldau (Game of Thrones) for some lesser parts, as well as Kevin Durand.

EDIT 2- Dwelling on Ant-Man's release date more, what's most interesting to me is that Ant-Man is the first film of Phase Three. I think we were all a bit unsure as to how AM would fit into the Phase Two schedule.

But, still, that makes AM the equivalent of IM1 & 3 in the grand scheme of things, having to launch a new Phase. That they're banking it on an "unknown" character (one less well known than Iron Man was before his film, by a vast margin) might indicate that they'll be focusing on establishing new main characters to carry the Phase Three films and beyond.

Granted, that also might have something to do with RDJ's contract being up for renewal (and RDJ probably wanting at least a small break between his dump trucks full of cash even if/when he's resigned), but still interesting nonetheless.

Or it just means Avengers 3 will be about Ultron, which is all well and awesome.

And I am fully aware how ridiculous the name is. Yet the character is so much more than the name, as is my interest in him.

Very well. What would you have called him then?

And now that I pose that question, it makes me wonder if the problem we're having here is about old age. Not that we're old (or rather, oldER), but rather that we may want to revise characters and ideas over 50 years old - created way back then first and foremost to entertain juvenile minds - to fit within our 21st century (or just older person) mindset. Is that truly what this is all about, hm?

Ming-Na Wen (Stargate Universe, ER)will play a "soulful" and "damaged" pilot named Melinda May in Joss Whedon's new S.H.I.E.L.D. TV show. Melinda May is described as "an ace pilot, a weapons expert and a soldier who can - and has - gone beyond the call of duty." And apparently she's the character who was originally named Special Agent Althea Rice, aka the Cavalry, in the first casting breakdown. Also, judging from some of the reports out there, it sounds like the late Agent Coulson (Clark Gregg) might only be in the show's pilot, not an ongoing character.

So, some news outta Fox today: Matthew Vaughn (who took over directing First Class after Bryan Singer was unable to return, as was originally planned) is backing out of Days of Future Past (but will remain as a producer) so that he can direct the film adaptation of Mark Millar's Secret Service (wonder if they'll get Mark Hamill to play Mark Hamill ).

This would normally be bad news, given how FC was almost as good as the first two films (and how fantastic Kick-Ass was). However, the word is that the front runner to replace him in the director's chair... is Bryan Singer!

If so, this is worthy of celebration. Release the awesome cover of the only true X-Men theme song!

Where this film sits in the universe of the films is after them all," revealed Mangold. "Jean Grey is gone, most of the X-Men are disbanded or gone, so there’s a tremendous sense of isolation for him."

Now, there will be prequel elements in the film as we already know some scenes will take place in World War II, but after that it will presumably jump to the present day.

"That’s something that for me was very important, that I land in a very specific place in his timeline," says Mangold. "I wanted to be able to tell the story without the burden of handing it off to a film that already exists and having to conform to it. The ideas of immortality reign very heavily in this story and the burden of immortality weighs heavily on Logan. For me that’s such an interesting part of Logan’s character that is nearly impossible to explore if you have a kind of league or team movie."

And before you start to think of this movie as an action adventure, Mangold gave his two cents on its categorization: "Japanese noir picture with tentpole action in it."